Content uploaded by Elissa El Khawli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elissa El Khawli on Oct 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
Available online 1 October 2022
0001-8791/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
The rise and fall of job insecurity during a pandemic: The role of
habitual coping
☆
Elissa El Khawli
*
,
1
, Anita C. Keller , Maximilian Agostini , Ben Gützkow ,
Jannis Kreienkamp , N. Pontus Leander
2
, Susanne Scheibe
University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Job insecurity
COVID-19
Coping strategies
ABSTRACT
Crises like the COVID-19 pandemic can trigger concerns about loss of employment and changes in
work conditions, and thereby increase job insecurity. Yet, little is known about how perceived job
insecurity subsequently unfolds over time and how individual differences in habitual coping
moderate such a trajectory. Using longitudinal data from 899 US-based participants across 5
waves (March to June 2020), we investigated the trajectory of job insecurity during the COVID-19
pandemic and how this trajectory depended on habitual coping strategies such as planning,
reappraisal, and distraction. Results from latent growth curve analysis indicated that, on average,
job insecurity initially increased and then decreased after signing of the coronavirus stimulus bill,
suggesting a pattern of shock followed by adjustment. During the shock phase, habitual use of
distraction was related to less increases in job insecurity. Later during the adjustment phase,
decreases in job insecurity were more pronounced for individuals with higher habitual use of
planning, but were not affected by reappraisal or distraction. Hence, different coping strategies
appear benecial in different phases of adjustment, and the benecial effect of planning may take
time to manifest. Altogether, our study highlights how in the context of extraordinary and un-
controllable events, coping strategies can impact the trajectory of a stressor.
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic had wide ranging impacts on people's careers (Akkermans et al., 2020). Implications of the pandemic on
jobs and careers include increased unemployment, changed work conditions, and increases in job stressors (Akkermans et al., 2020; De
Witte et al., 2015). In the rst week after the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, 1.4 million Americans lost their jobs. By mid-April
2020, the U.S. unemployment rate increased to a level unprecedented since the Great Depression, reaching an unemployment rate of
14.7 % (as cited in Wilson et al., 2020). Such rapid and unprecedented layoffs due to macro-level crises may make workers more likely
to feel threatened by the potential loss of their job, and therefore experience job insecurity (Akkermans et al., 2020).
Yet, little is known about how job stressors unfold in such times of crisis. Indeed, over time, increases in work stressors may
☆
The research reported in this article was supported by a grant by the Dutch Research Council awarded to Susanne Scheibe (VIDI project
number 452-16-014).
* Corresponding author at: Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Thomas van Aquinosstraat 4, 6525 GD Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
E-mail address: elissa.elkhawli@ru.nl (E. El Khawli).
1
Elissa El Khawli is now at the Department of Sociology at the Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
2
Pontus Leander is now at the Department of Psychology at Wayne State University, the United States of America.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Vocational Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103792
Received 27 September 2021; Received in revised form 22 September 2022; Accepted 24 September 2022
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
2
continue, level off, or wane. For example, an employee who initially experiences increased job insecurity during a period of mass
layoffs may later experience more security—or at least less insecurity, and this may be related to both psychological adaptation
processes (e.g., Zhu et al., 2016), and contextual factors, such as the signing of the coronavirus stimulus bill by the White House to
nancially support people who were disadvantaged by the pandemic (Cochrane & Stolverg, 2020).
To examine the trajectory of a stressor during a macro-level crisis, the present research uses longitudinal data that started on March
10, 2020 – the eve of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring COVID-19 a pandemic, to June 2020. We conceptually
distinguish two phases of the pandemic: an initial shock phase, which is characterized by high uncontrollability, unpredictability, and
emotional intensity. This phase reects the early weeks of the pandemic in March 2020. We also distinguish a subsequent adjustment
phase, characterized by more controllability and predictability, and lower emotional intensity. We predict that the trajectory of job
insecurity will differ in each theorized phase, as individuals, organizations, and governments adjusted to the pandemic.
We expect that different habitual coping strategies inuence the trajectory of job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact,
habitual coping, or individual differences in the way people dispositionally cope with stressors, inuence how people respond to
stressors (Carver et al., 1989). Over time, habitual coping strategies may also help in reducing the stressor itself, such as job insecurity
(Koen & Parker, 2020). At the same time, habitual coping requires personal and situational resources, such as control, social support,
and work involvement (e.g., Stiglbauer & Batinic, 2015; Urry & Gross, 2010), which may not be as available in the context of a macro-
level crisis (Akkermans et al., 2018). The COVID-19 pandemic is, therefore, a prime setting to study individual differences in the way
people respond to and cope with job insecurity during crises. Drawing on the transactional theory of stress and coping (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1987), we expect that habitual coping will have a different effect on the trajectory of job insecurity across the shock and
adjustment phases.
This research has the potential to address multiple outstanding theoretical issues. First, job insecurity may change with time and
circumstance, so we investigate piecewise changes in job insecurity, and distinguish between a shock phase and an adjustment phase.
In doing so, we enrich theorizing on job insecurity by providing insight into how it changes over time. Second, there is a paucity of
research on how coping strategies inuence the stressor itself (i.e., perceived job insecurity), despite prominent theorizing in major
theories of stress and coping on the role of coping in changing the transaction between the person and the stressor, and in offsetting
threats (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). In fact, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have mainly focused on the
moderating role of coping on stressor-strain relations (e.g., Cheng et al., 2014; Day & Livingstone, 2001; Koen & Parker, 2020; Richter
et al., 2013). The present research thus investigates how habitual coping strategies inuence the trajectory of the stressor itself. Third,
by examining the interplay between job insecurity during the pandemic and individual coping strategies, we integrate both agentic and
contextual perspectives in understanding work and careers. Indeed, mainstream career theories tend to emphasize the role of indi-
vidual agency in forging career paths (Briscoe & Hall, 2006; Dellippi & Arthur, 1994). In certain contexts however, for example a
macro-level crisis, agency may have a more limited role (Akkermans et al., 2018; Forrier et al., 2018).
1.1. Job insecurity as a changing work stressor
Job insecurity is the subjective experience of being threatened by the loss of a job, or the loss of valued features of the job (De Witte
et al., 2015). As a result, job insecurity also threatens people's work-related resources, such as nancial security, social embeddedness,
social status, and identity, and is therefore conceptualized as a stressor (Jahoda, 1982; Vander Elst et al., 2016). Job insecurity may
vary across individuals who are exposed to the same conditions (Shoss, 2017; van Vuuren et al., 1991). At the same time, job insecurity
may, on average, be higher when labor market conditions are unfavorable, for example during economic crises, as these factors signal
to people that their job may be in danger (Chung & van Oorschot, 2011; Gallie et al., 2017; Shoss, 2017). Accordingly, we concep-
tualize job insecurity as a stressor that may increase due to a common contextual factor (e.g., the pandemic), but that may also vary for
some people more than others, due to individual differences in key psychological variables—namely, habitual coping strategies.
Job insecurity has been investigated both cross-sectionally (e.g., Richter et al., 2013; Selenko & Batinic, 2013) and longitudinally
(De Witte et al., 2015, for a review; Koen & Parker, 2020; Langerak et al., 2022; Selenko & Batinic, 2013); studies tend to report
positive links between job insecurity and indicators of strain (De Witte et al., 2015; Shoss, 2017). More recently, researchers have
adopted a temporal perspective to job insecurity, by investigating changes in job insecurity over a period of two and six years (Kin-
nunen et al., 2014; Klug et al., 2019, respectively). Specically, both Klug et al. (2019) and Kinnunen et al. (2014) found that about
one-quarter of their participants experienced changes in job insecurity over time, thus indicating that job insecurity can rise and fall as
time passes. Further, Kinnunen et al. (2014) argue that these changes are more likely during periods in which layoffs increase, as this
signals to people that their jobs may be in jeopardy.
1.2. Job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic, which serves as the context of this study, has been an extraordinary and uncontrollable crisis with
tangible consequences on jobs and careers (Akkermans et al., 2020). Such crises, given their low controllability, bring about a
sensemaking process whereby people reect on the implications of the crisis for their situation (Akkermans et al., 2018, 2020; Maitlis
& Sonenshein, 2010; Weick, 1988). For example, the unprecedented rise in layoffs during the pandemic might make people evaluate
the extent to which their own job might be threatened, thereby increasing perceptions of job insecurity. Recently, Lin et al. (2021)
observed, among Chinese workers, that job insecurity was positively correlated with both the novelty and the disruptiveness of the
COVID-19 pandemic event. Peoplealso differ in their perceptions of job insecurity; for instance, Klug et al. (2019) observe that in-
creases in job insecurity perceptions among early-career workers differ by individual circumstances such as temporary contracts or
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
3
lower education. Nevertheless, the pandemic has been an extraordinary event to which people were exposed worldwide. Therefore, we
argue that the pandemic forced most people to evaluate and make sense of its implications on their jobs, even if the impact of these
implications may vary across individuals.
Over the course of the pandemic, we expect some uctuation in the levels of job insecurity. This is because the pandemic is an event
of long duration, and arguably, changes in job insecurity during the pandemic are not likely to remain constant over time (Kinnunen
et al., 2014). We expect increasing levels of job insecurity mainly during the initial stages of the pandemic. Indeed, during early stages
of the pandemic, many organizations had to change and adapt to accommodate the COVID-19 measures that were put in place (e.g.,
restafng, transitioning to telework). Further, layoffs increased drastically during the early period of the pandemic (as cited in Wilson
et al., 2020). These signals may increase people's concerns over whether they could keep their own jobs as the pandemic continued.
Hence, the early stage of the pandemic should be characterized by a rapid increase in job insecurity. We label this earlier stage of the
pandemic the shock phase. The shock phase should be characterized by high emotional intensity, lack of control, and unpredictability.
Based on the above, we expect the following:
Hypothesis 1. During the shock phase, the trajectory of job insecurity is positive, reecting increases in job insecurity over time.
After the initial shock, people may start to adjust. This adjustment may be linked to both psychological and contextual factors. First,
drawing on the adaptation literature (e.g., Zhu et al., 2016), it is likely that people adapted at some point to the novelty of this crisis
and the increase in stressors that it brought about. We expect that over the course of the pandemic, some people found new ways to
plan for the situation (e.g., transitioning to part-time work, transitioning to telework, selecting and carrying out specic work tasks
that were not implicated by the pandemic), which should reduce people's work-related stressors. A recent study by Michel et al. (2021)
showed that work-related psychological strain decreased over time during the pandemic, thereby providing support for adaptational
mechanisms. Second, on the 27th of March 2020, the coronavirus stimulus bill was signed by the White House (Cochrane & Stolverg,
2020). This date may have signaled a turning point for US workers as it might have reduced some of the uncertainty around the
pandemic, claried the implications of the pandemic on workers' jobs, and allowed people to experience more control over the sit-
uation. For example, Wilson et al. (2020) found that job insecurity was associated with anxiety via nancial concern, meaning that
people may feel less threatened by the potential loss of their job when they are less nancially concerned by the implications of this job
loss. Accordingly, we use the date of the signing of the stimulus bill as a transition point in the job insecurity trajectory, and label the
second stage of the pandemic the adjustment phase. The adjustment phase should be characterized by more control and predictability
and less emotional intensity than the shock trajectory. As such, we predict:
Hypothesis 2. During the adjustment phase, the trajectory of job insecurity is negative, reecting decreases in job insecurity over
time.
1.3. Coping strategies and the trajectory of job insecurity
Perceptions of job insecurity vary across individuals, and so, too, may the trajectory of job insecurity perceptions during a macro-
level crisis. Previous research has shown that coping is a psychological variable that may attenuate the relationship between job
insecurity and strain reactions (e.g., Cheng et al., 2014; Men´
endez-Espina et al., 2019; Probst & Jiang, 2016; Richter et al., 2013). More
recently, researchers have started to examine how use of coping strategies, at a given time point, may inuence the experience of job
insecurity itself, at a later time point. Although this approach is relatively recent in the job insecurity literature, different stress and
coping theories have emphasized the role of coping in protecting resources (and offsetting threats to resources) before these resources
are lost (Hobfoll, 1989), and in preventing, removing, or improving stressors (Carver et al., 1989). Theoretically, coping strategies have
the potential to target the problem ‘at the source’, beyond mitigating the stressor-strain relationship. If so, it may require time to take
effect: In a ve-week survey, Langerak et al. (2022) observed no effects of coping strategy use at a given time on perceived job
insecurity a week later. A potential explanation for the null nding is that ve weeks was not enough time; some coping strategies, for
example career planning, may need more time to take effect. Therefore, we extend our analysis to approximately 14 weeks (March-
–June 2020). This approach, which focuses on changes in job insecurity as opposed to investigating average values of job insecurity at
multiple time points, is particularly useful to understand how habitual coping strategies may help people navigate demands in times of
crises.
Although the coping literature recognizes and distinguishes many strategies that t into different forms of coping, we focus here on
three cognitive strategies: planning, a problem-focused coping strategy that involves coming up with steps to navigate or change the
situation, reappraisal, an emotion-focused coping strategy that involves reinterpreting the situation, and distraction, an avoidance-
focused coping strategy which involves redeploying one's thoughts and feelings away from the situation (Carver et al., 1989;
Sexton & Dugas, 2008). Cognitive coping strategies are thought to precede behavioral and social regulatory processes (e.g., substance
abuse, social support seeking). They therefore have important implications for the way people deal with stress and regulate emotional
responses (Garnefski & Kraaij, 2007; Gross, 2002; Skinner et al., 2003).
The present research uses the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to consider whether habitual coping strategies moderate
perceived job insecurity across two distinct phases of a crisis. Problem-focused forms of coping are generally thought to be effective for
dealing with stress (for an overview, see Semmer, 2002). Yet, problem-focused forms of coping, including planning, require a person to
have some control over the situation (Ito & Brotheridge, 2003; Spector, 2002). For example, a person who normally plans to nd a new
job months in advance before their work contract ends may nd planning more difcult if they think their organization may or may not
lay them off at any time. Therefore, problem-focused strategies such as planning may be ineffective during periods that are marked by
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
4
uncontrollability. In contrast, emotion-focused forms of coping, such as reappraisal, are generally thought to be effective at dealing
with the emotional response of stressors (Carver et al., 1989). Reappraisal may be especially useful in uncontrollable contexts (e.g.,
Troy et al., 2013). Even avoidance-focused forms of coping, such as distraction—which have traditionally been classied as mal-
adaptive (Carver et al., 1989), may be more useful than planning in highly stressful situations because the attentional disengagement
may be functional at decreasing emotional reactivity for high-intensity stressors (Sheppes, 2020).
During the shock phase of the pandemic, people may feel that they have little control over the work context. Indeed, networking
may be more difcult due to lockdowns and large group restrictions, and talking to one's supervisor about one's job insecurity may be
more difcult given that working from home limited daily interactions with colleagues. Accordingly, a person who normally plans
what they can do best in a stressful situation may nd very limited options. Therefore, problem-focused forms of coping, such as
planning, should be less effective at mitigating stressors during earlier stages of the pandemic, and may even make the stressor more
salient, thereby leading to increases in job insecurity (Akkermans et al., 2018, 2020). Indeed, Zacher and Rudolph (2021) found that
planning as a coping strategy was negatively related to life satisfaction during the pandemic. This may be due to the omnipresent lack
of control in the pandemic that constrains the effectiveness of problem-focused coping. In contrast to planning, strategies that target
reducing emotional distress or disengaging from the stressor may be the better strategies for the shock phase. Accordingly, reappraisal
and distraction should be effective for mitigating increases in job insecurity during the shock phase of the pandemic.
During the adjustment phase, some amount of control is regained, which may reduce the stressful intensity of the situation. For
example, people may have had time to habituate to the new situation and its constraints, and have developed expectations and clarity
of what they can and cannot do. Therefore, planning may become more effective at mitigating job insecurity in the adjustment phase.
Reappraisal may also be helpful in the adjustment phase. Although reappraisal may not modify the stressor itself, it may still help
people to see the situation in a different or more positive light, and therefore feel less threatened by it (Uusberg et al., 2019; Vishkin
et al., 2020). Distraction, in contrast, involves completely disengaging from the stressor at all phases of the pandemic. As such,
distraction does not actively modify job insecurity, nor does it help people feel less threatened by it, and should therefore be related to
less decrease in job insecurity at the adjustment phase.
Hypothesis 3. Higher levels of habitual planning are related to (a) steeper increases in job insecurity during the shock phase and (b)
steeper decreases in job insecurity during the adjustment phase.
Hypothesis 4. Higher levels of habitual reappraisal are related to (a) less steep increases in job insecurity during the shock phase and
(b) steeper decreases in job insecurity during the adjustment phase.
Hypothesis 5. Higher levels of habitual distraction are related to (a) less steep increases in job insecurity during the shock phase and
(b) less steep decreases in job insecurity during the adjustment phase.
Traditionally, scholars have argued that people have a preference towards a single form of coping they routinely use (Carver et al.,
1989; McCrae, 1982). However, this position has been challenged by scholars who argue that it would be dysfunctional to use only one
form of coping across all times and circumstances (Folkman et al., 1986). Indeed, Cohen et al. (1986) argue that when managing
stressors, combining active and non-active coping strategies would be more effective than relying on a single strategy. Moreover, some
coping strategies may be especially effective when used in combination with other strategies; for instance, Carver and Scheier (1994)
March 2020 - Layoffs 2.4
higher than Mar.
2019
•10/03/2020 - Wave 1
(N = 894)
• 11/03/2020 - WHO
declares a pandemic
•20/03/2020 - Wave 2
(N = 549)
• 27/03/2020 -
Coronavirus s
bill is signed in
Washington
•28/03/2020 - Wave 3
(N = 500)
April 2020 - Layoffs 24.42
higher than Apr.
2019
•11/04/2020 - Wave 4
(N = 429)
June 2020 - Layoffs 12.52
higher than Jun.
2019
•16/06/2020 - Wave 5
(N = 366)
Fig. 1. Timeline of data collection and COVID-19 events.
Source. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021).
Note. We dened the shock trajectory of job insecurity between Waves 1 and 3. Around Wave 3, the coronavirus stimulus bill was signed in
Washington, and we therefore dened Wave 3 as a turning point to the adjustment trajectory. Although Wave 5 is also in the adjustment trajectory,
it was measured approximately 2 months after Wave 4, and therefore is a follow-up survey. Dates given for the waves refer to the date on which said
survey was launched.
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
5
argue that emotion-focused coping strategies may be instrumental in paving the way for problem-focused coping, and that problem-
focused coping strategies may facilitate emotion-focused coping. There has been some empirical support for these statements. For
example, Shimazu et al. (2008) observed that, under conditions of high situational demands, use of distancing in combination with
problem-focused coping rendered problem-focused coping more effective at reducing psychological distress. Therefore, we shall
explore two- and three-way interactions between coping strategies, to test whether habitual use of different combinations of strategies
is more helpful to reduce job insecurity compared to habitual use of single strategies.
2. Method
2.1. Sample and procedure
We recruited US-based adults on MTurk for a ve-wave longitudinal study, beginning on the eve the WHO declared COVID-19 a
pandemic (March 10, 2020; see Fig. 1 for information on interval and timing of the waves). In Wave 1, we recruited 1056 participants
over a few days, who were invited to subsequent waves. Given that we were interested in studying changes in job insecurity over time,
participants were considered eligible only if they were involved in some form of paid work in at least one of the ve waves. The number
of working participants at Wave 1 was 894, 549 for Wave 2 (61 %), 500 for Wave 3 (56 %), 429 for Wave 4 (48 %), and 366 for Wave 5
(41 %). Participants were matched across waves using their provided MTurk ID. We excluded 22 cases that were not matched to an
MTurk ID across waves. Participants were screened for duplicates based on the MTurk IDs they provided and on their IP addresses.
Observations based on duplicate cases were excluded from the analyses. Further, to account for careless responding, we considered
survey response time and Mahalanobis distance as relevant criteria (Desimone et al., 2015; Meade & Craig, 2012). Accordingly, re-
sponses to items were excluded in a given wave if participants responded to that survey in less than 5 min. We identied 17 careless
responses based on survey timing at Wave 1, 7 participants at Wave 2, 7 participants at Wave 3, 9 participants at Wave 4, and 1
participant at Wave 5. Wave-specic data were deleted when agged for careless responding. We calculated Mahalanobis distances on
the set of study variables for each wave, and only excluded participants if they provided outlier responses in four waves or more, which
resulted in the exclusion of 4 additional participants (note that no participant provided outlier responses in all ve waves). Ultimately,
participants were included in the analyses if they were involved in some form of paid work and had provided valid data in at least one
of the ve waves, if they did not provide outlier responses for more than three waves, and if we were able to match their data, resulting
in a nal sample size of 899.
3
Of those, 45 % were aged between 18 and 34, 42 % between 35 and 54, and 13 % were 55 or older. Of the
sample, 46 % identied as female, 54 % identied as male, and 0.6 % did not identify with either category. The majority of the sample
had at least a college degree (72 %). At Wave 1, 17 % of participants reported working between 1 and 24 h per week, 27 % between 24
and 39 h per week, and 60 % were working 40 h or more per week.
We conducted dropout analyses between those who provided valid data in Wave 1 and were included in at least another wave, and
those who provided valid data for Wave 1 but were not included in another wave (to check for substantial differences on study
variables). Overall, those who remained scored lower on job insecurity (M
1
=2.24, M
2
=2.58, t (875) = − 4.81, p <.001, Cohen's d =
−0.37), and lower on distraction (M
1
=3.16; M
2
=3.39, t (448.31)
4
= − 3.281, p <.001, Cohen's d = − 0.24). There were no signicant
differences between groups on planning and reappraisal. Although there were some signicant differences between waves on some of
the study variables, the difference in the Cohen's D effect size was small for distraction and moderate for job insecurity. Our study was
granted ethical approval from the authors' university prior to data collection.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Job insecurity
We measured job insecurity in each wave using three items from De Witte (2000). Participants rated the extent to which they agree
or disagree on the items using a ve-point Likert scale (e.g., “I feel insecure about the future of my job.” 1 =strongly disagree; 5 =
strongly agree).
2.2.2. Coping strategies
We measured habitual coping strategies in Wave 1. Participants were asked to think about how they generally deal with stressful
and emotional situations when they arise, and gave their assessments on a 5-point frequency scale, ranging from (almost) never to
(almost) always. For problem-focused coping, we measured planning using three items from Carver et al. (1989; e.g., “I tried to come
up with a strategy about what to do.”). For emotion-focused coping, we measured reappraisal using three items from Izadpanah et al.
(2017; e.g., “I changed my feelings by thinking differently about the situation.”). For avoidance-focused coping, we measured
distraction using three items from Sexton and Dugas (2008; e.g., “I distracted myself to avoid thinking about the subject.”).
3
Note that this number is higher than the number of working participants at Wave 1 (894). This is because participants may be unemployed at
Wave 1 but employed at subsequent waves.
4
Equal variances not assumed.
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
6
2.3. Analytical approach
Analyses were conducted using Mplus 8.5, which deals with missing values using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML;
Muth´
en & Muth´
en, 2017). First, we established the measurement models for the coping strategies and job insecurity across time. We
conducted a conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the coping strategies, to ensure that the three coping constructs were sufciently
distinct from one another. Based on recommendations by Hu and Bentler's (1999), to indicate acceptable t, we expected a value close
to 0.06 for the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), a value close to 0.95 or higher for the Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). We further tested for measurement invariance of job insecurity across time. We checked for con-
gural invariance (same pattern of loadings across waves), followed by weak factorial invariance (congural invariance and invariant
factor loadings across waves), strong factorial invariance (weak factorial invariance and invariant intercepts across waves), and strict
factorial invariance (strong factorial invariance and invariant residual variables across waves). In all measurement models, we also
correlated the residual variances of matching indicators across measurement points to avoid inated estimates. Based on the rec-
ommendations for testing measurement invariance of Chen (2007), to detect measurement non-invariance, we expected a CFI decrease
greater than or equal to 0.01 along with a RMSEA increase greater than or equal to 0.015.
Second, we used second-order latent growth curve modeling to estimate the average trajectory of job insecurity over time (Geiser
et al., 2013). This allowed us to incorporate the measurement model into the structural model, and to correlate the uniquenesses
between matching items across different measurement points, thereby leading to more robust results. Following recommendations by
Geiser et al. (2013), we xed the intercept of the rst job insecurity items at zero for each wave, and we constrained the matching
second and third items to be equal across waves. To account for the period before the coronavirus stimulus bill was signed in
Washington and the period after, we estimated a piece-wise latent growth trajectory (Flora, 2008). As such, we specied the turning
point at the third wave of the study (see Fig. 1). This approach allowed us to estimate and test the relationships between the intercept,
which reects the initial levels of job insecurity at Wave 1 of the study, and two slopes (for each of the shock and adjustment phases of
the pandemic, respectively). We accounted for the unequal time interval between slopes by xing the factor loadings to the week of
measurement (see Fig. 1). For the rst slope of the piecewise trajectory, we xed the loadings for T1, T2, and T3 at 0 and 1.5, and 2.5
respectively. Given that this slope represents the shock phase, T4 and T5 were xed at the same loading as T3. For the second slope, we
xed the loadings from T1 to T3 to 0, and the loadings of T4 and T5 to 2 and 11.5, respectively.
Third, we conducted a conditional growth model, in which we specied latent factors for each of the coping strategies, and used
them as predictors of the intercept and slopes of job insecurity. Similar to the unconditional growth model, we also incorporated the
measurement model into the structural model. We rst tested a main-effects model, M1, in which the intercept and two slopes of job
insecurity were regressed on planning, reappraisal, and distraction. Then, we tested models M2 and M3, which include two- and three-
way interaction effects, respectively. We created latent interaction terms (planning*reappraisal, planning*distraction, reap-
praisal*distraction, planning*reappraisal*distraction) using the Latent Moderated Structural Equation Modeling (LMS; Klein &
Moosbrugger, 2000) approach implemented in Mplus using the XWITH function (e.g., Maslowsky et al., 2015).
3. Results
See Table 1 for means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities of study variables.
3.1. Measurement models
Conrmatory factor analysis for habitual coping strategies indicated adequate t for a three-factor solution (
χ
2
=221.26, df =24, p
<.01; RMSEA =0.097; CFI =0.944; TLI =0.916; see Supplementary Table 1 for standardized loadings).
Table 2 represents the results from comparing the congural, weak factorial, strong factorial invariance, and (partial) strict
factorial invariances models for job insecurity across time to one another. We could not retain the strict invariance hypothesis, so we
tested for partial strict invariance by releasing the equality constraint on one job insecurity item across two of the ve measurement
points. As the differences between the models were below the cut-off, we retained the partial strict factorial invariance measurement
model for job insecurity over time (see Supplementary Table 2 for standardized loadings).
Table 1
Means, correlations, and reliabilities of study variables.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. T1 job insecurity 2.33 0.93 (0.74)
2. T2 job insecurity 2.62 1.06 0.52** (0.76)
3. T3 job insecurity 2.52 1.01 0.48** 0.66** (0.75)
4. T4 job insecurity 2.28 0.95 0.58** 0.63** 0.65** (0.81)
5. T5 job insecurity 2.15 0.89 0.60** 0.56** 0.56** 0.69** (0.75)
6. Planning 3.93 0.72 −0.15** −0.06 −0.09* −0.13* −0.21** (0.80)
7. Reappraisal 3.61 0.82 −0.06 −0.04 −0.08 −0.09 −0.14** 0.51** (0.80)
8. Distraction 3.23 0.96 0.21** 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.15** 0.30** (0.87)
*
p <.05.
**
p <.01.
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
7
3.2. Unconditional piecewise latent growth curve model
The piece-wise latent growth model had adequate t (
χ
2
=375.79, df =82, p <.01; RMSEA =0.06; CFI =0.93; TLI =0.91).
However, model results showed a misspecication around the job insecurity latent factor at measurement point T5. We re-estimated
the model by freeing the factor loading for T5 in the second slope (Liu et al., 2016). The new piece-wise latent growth model also
showed adequate t (
χ
2
=312.51, df =81, p <.01; RMSEA =0.06; CFI =0.94; TLI =0.93), and the T5 loading was estimated at 2.73.
Table 3 shows the coefcients for initial levels and slopes for shock and adjustment phases.
The estimated mean trajectory for job insecurity is illustrated in Fig. 2. Overall, job insecurity increased during the shock phase, and
then decreased during the adjustment phase, thereby providing support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. The intercept of job insecurity was not
signicantly related to either the shock trajectory or the adjustment trajectory. There was a negative correlation between the two
slopes, meaning steeper increases in job insecurity during the shock phase were followed by steeper decreases in the adjustment phase
of the pandemic.
3.3. Conditional growth of job insecurity on coping strategies
Results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4. Planning was negatively related to the intercept of job insecurity, while
distraction was positively related to the intercept of job insecurity. Reappraisal was unrelated to the intercept. In the shock phase,
distraction was associated with less increase in job insecurity. There was a marginally signicant positive effect of planning on job
insecurity, meaning that higher levels of habitual planning were related to steeper increases in job insecurity in the shock phase. Also in
the shock phase, distraction was associated with less increases in job insecurity. Therefore, results did not support Hypotheses 3a and
4a, but did support Hypothesis 5a. In the adjustment phase, only planning was negatively related to the slope of job insecurity. In other
terms, those who used planning habitually were more likely to experience decreases in job insecurity during the adjustment phase of
the pandemic, thereby providing support for Hypothesis 3b. We could not nd support for Hypotheses 4b and 5b.
We did not observe any two- or three-way interaction effects of coping on job insecurity for either the shock or adjustment slopes
(Table 5). There was, however, a negative signicant interaction effect of planning and reappraisal on the intercept of job insecurity,
implying that using reappraisal in combination with planning strengthens the negative relationship between planning and the
intercept of job insecurity. We also found a negative three-way interaction effect on the intercept of job insecurity, meaning that the
use of distraction in conjunction with reappraisal and planning is associated with even more job insecurity than the use of one strategy
or the joint use of reappraisal and planning only (see supplementary materials for details about the simple slope analysis of the three-
way interaction effect on the job insecurity intercept).
4. Discussion
We investigated the trajectory of job insecurity during the pandemic across a theorized shock phase, followed by an adjustment
phase, and how different habitual coping strategies moderated the trajectory of job insecurity during the shock and adjustment phases.
Our results based on a piece-wise growth model show that, as expected, job insecurity increased during the shock phase and decreased
in the adjustment phase, which implies adaptation processes. Pronounced increases in job insecurity during the shock trajectory were
associated with pronounced decreases in the adjustment trajectory: Hence, employees who showed a strong initial reactivity expe-
rienced less job insecurity later on. Supporting our predictions, we found that the pandemic was related to people experiencing more
job insecurity, predominantly during the shock phase. This is in line with Rudolph et al. (2020), who speculated about the pandemic's
implications for job insecurity, and Lin et al. (2021), who found that job insecurity was predicted by pandemic-specic event
Table 2
Measurement invariance of job insecurity.
Measurement models Chi-square df p RMSEA |ΔRMSEA| CFI |ΔCFI| TLI
Congural invariance 176.23 50 <.01 0.053 0.97 0.936
Weak factorial invariance 214.73 58 <.01 0.055 0.002 0.962 0.008 0.932
Strong factorial invariance 249.41 66 <.01 0.056 0.001 0.956 0.006 0.93
Strict factorial invariance 327.08 78 <.01 0.06 0.004 0.94 0.016 0.919
Partial strict factorial invariance 290.52 76 <.01 0.056 0 0.948 0.008 0.929
Note. Df =degrees of freedom; CFI =comparative t index; RMSEA =root mean square error of approximation.
Table 3
Estimates of piecewise univariate growth of job insecurity.
Mean (SE) Variance (SE) 1 2
1. Intercept 2.34** (0.04) 0.67** (0.10)
2. Trajectory during shock phase 0.15** (0.02) 0.07** (0.02) <0.01
3. Trajectory during adjustment phase −0.18** (0.02) 0.07** (0.02) 0.01 −0.07**
Note. Values reported are unstandardized estimates. SE =standard error.
**
p <.01.
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
T0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14
Job Insecurity Trajectory
Fig. 2. Job insecurity trajectory based on a piecewise latent growth model.
Note. The original scale of job insecurity was measured on a scale from 1 to 5. For ease of visualization, we display the scale from 1 to 3. The vertical
line represents the transition point, when the stimulus bill was passed.
Table 4
Unstandardized estimates of conditional growth of job insecurity on coping strategies.
Main effects
Intercept S1
a
S2
b
Planning −0.42** (0.10) 0.09
†
(0.05) −0.09* (0.05)
Reappraisal 0.09 (0.09) −0.04 (0.05) 0.04 (0.04)
Distraction 0.34** (0.05) −0.06* (0.03) 0.01 (0.02)
Note. Values in parentheses are standard errors of the estimates.
a
S1 is the slope of job insecurity during the shock phase.
b
S2 is the slope of job insecurity during the adjustment phase.
*
p <.05.
**
p <.01.
†
p =.08.
Table 5
Unstandardized estimates of conditional growth of job insecurity on coping strategies, including interaction effects.
Main +two-way interaction effects Main +two- and three-way interaction effects
Intercept S1
a
S2
b
Intercept S1 S2
Planning −0.52** (0.12) 0.08 (0.05) −0.07 (0.05) −0.49** (0.12) 0.08 (0.06) −0.07 (0.05)
Reappraisal 0.13 (0.11) −0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.04) 0.15 (0.11) −0.02 (0.05) 0.01 (0.05)
Distraction 0.34** (0.06) −0.06 (0.03) 0.01 (0.02) 0.44** (0.07) −0.05 (0.04) −0.01 (0.03)
Planning * reappraisal −0.31** (0.10) 0.01 (0.05) 0.02 (0.04) −0.37** (0.10) <−0.01 (0.05) 0.04 (0.04)
Planning * distraction −0.10 (0.15) −0.03 (0.08) 0.07 (0.08) −0.15 (0.15) −0.03 (0.08) 0.07 (0.09)
Reappraisal * distraction 0.10 (0.12) 0.05 (0.07) −0.08 (0.08) 0.12 (0.12) 0.05 (0.07) −0.08 (0.08)
Planning * reappraisal * distraction −0.23* (0.10) −0.02 (0.05) 0.04 (0.05)
Note. Values in parentheses are standard errors of the estimates.
a
S1 is the slope of job insecurity during the shock phase.
b
S2 is the slope of job insecurity during the adjustment phase.
*
p ≤.05.
**
p <.01.
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
9
characteristics. Also, in line with our predictions, the adjustment trajectory was generally characterized by decreases in job insecurity.
4.1. Job insecurity growth and habitual coping strategies
The growth of job insecurity during the shock phase of the pandemic was negatively affected by distraction. However, no effects
were observed for planning and reappraisal on job insecurity during the shock phase. These ndings suggest that in uncontrollable
contexts, problem-focused coping strategies that are geared towards modifying the situation may not be useful. Distraction, in contrast,
was effective at mitigating increases in job insecurity during the shock phase, which implies that it may help to reduce the experience
of stressors during uncontrollable situations, albeit for the short-term. Reappraisal, which was thought to be effective at mitigating job
insecurity increases during the shock phase, was unrelated to changes in job insecurity during that period. A potential explanation
could be that reappraisal requires a positive mindset, which aids in coming up with positive reinterpretations of events (Fredrickson,
2004). In the pandemic, people generally showed less positive affect, which would make coming up with positive reappraisals all the
more challenging (Zacher & Rudolph, 2021).
At the adjustment phase, we found that planning was effective at reducing job insecurity, but reappraisal and distraction were
unrelated to changes in job insecurity. This suggests that planning is a relatively effective strategy at reducing job insecurity, but it may
take some time to kick in. As planning is one aspect of proactive coping (e.g., Aspinwall, 2011), our results are in line with Koen and
Parker (2020), who showed that proactive coping, operationalized as proactive career behaviors, reduced job insecurity perceptions
for people whose employment contracts are about to expire. Furthermore, our ndings echo the discussion in Langerak et al. (2022),
who found no effect for proactive coping strategies on job insecurity measured a week later, and suggested that this may either be due
to the pandemic—in which the effectiveness of proactive coping may be more limited, or may be a sign that proactive coping needs
time to take effect. Particularly surprising was that reappraisal did not have a role in reducing job insecurity in the adjustment phase,
despite its association with positive affect and well-being (see Gross & John, 2003). This could be because reappraisal is more suc-
cessful at reducing strain reactions, while more active strategies like planning are more successful at modifying the stressor itself.
Relatedly, our three-item measure of job insecurity did not capture affective job insecurity, which reect worry and anxiety about the
potential loss of one's job, and this could explain why reappraisal did not have an effect on our measure of job insecurity (Jiang &
Lavaysse, 2018). This may imply that coping with cognitive perceptions of stressors may be more effective through the use of active
strategies that would modify the stressor. All in all, our pattern of ndings echoes Akkermans' (2018) proposition on the importance of
incorporating contextual processes, such as macro-level crises, in mainstream career theories, as the context can signicantly affect the
degree to which people can modify their situations.
We did not observe any two- or three-way interaction effects of coping strategies on the slopes of job insecurity, which means that
habitual use of combinations of strategies did not predict changes in job insecurity, above and beyond single strategy use. This could be
because combinations of coping strategies, particularly combinations of problem-focused forms of coping and emotion−/avoidance-
focused forms of coping may be more useful to reduce stressor-strain reactions than to reduce the stressor itself. More research is
needed to qualify these ndings.
4.2. Theoretical implications
Our research offers several theoretical contributions. First, our ndings show the value of adopting a temporal approach to stressors
during critical events such as a pandemic. In fact, adopting a temporal approach has shown us that people do adjust their stressor
perceptions over time. Previous research examined adaptation from the lens of subjective well-being, consistently observing that, after
a negative or a positive event, subjective well-being can recover (e.g., Diener et al., 2006). Even in the case of the pandemic, research
has found that psychological symptoms generally decreased over time, which supports adaptation theories (e.g., Michel et al., 2021).
Yet, to the best of our knowledge, previous research has not investigated adaptation from the lens of the trajectory of the stressor itself.
In this study, we show that investigating the trajectory of a stressor can be useful in understanding how people respond to major crises.
For example, our ndings show that stronger shocks to stressors may be related to less adjustment over time, and this is something that
future research could investigate. Taken together, our ndings show that even in the context of the pandemic, people adjusted over
time, which speaks to how adaptive humans are.
Second, our ndings show the value of considering individual differences in the way people respond to macro-level crises. In fact,
our ndings show that people adjust their experience of job insecurity during an extraordinary event over time, and this, to a certain
extent, is dependent on the coping strategies that they habitually use. This underlines the importance for future research to consider
individual differences in response to crises. Specically, people who habitually use planning were, on the long-run, more successful at
mitigating job insecurity compared to others, even though this effect took some time to show. This nding may suggest that habitual
planning aided in building up some resources in the shock phase (e.g., consult with higher-ups, network with alternative organiza-
tions). These resources, in turn, were useful in reducing the insecurity during the adjustment phase. This notion is in line with previous
research that suggests that proactive coping helps accumulate resources which might be used at a later time to manage stressors
(Aspinwall, 2011). The nding that planning was more effective at reducing job insecurity also resonates with the transactional theory
of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). In this theory, problem-focused forms of coping (e.g., planning) target the stressor itself by
preventing or eliminating it, whereas emotion-focused forms of coping (e.g., reappraisal) target the emotional distress associated with
the stressor. Perhaps problem-focused forms of coping play an important role in reducing the stressor itself, whereas emotion-focused
forms of coping play an important role in reducing strain reactions. To advance the job insecurity literature, future research could thus
examine whether problem-focused forms of coping and emotion-focused forms of coping target cognitive and affective dimensions of
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
10
job insecurity, respectively (see also Langerak et al., 2022).
Third, our results show that the pandemic is a unique event in which established relations between psychological constructs may
behave differently. For instance, while coping should usually be negatively related to stressor levels (e.g., Koen & Parker, 2020), our
ndings show that certain forms of coping only pay off at the adjustment phase. This is in line with Zacher and Rudolph (2021), who
show that at early stages of the pandemic, coping was responsible for no to modest changes in subjective well-being. As such, re-
searchers should pay more attention and theorize more about behaviors and cognitions during extraordinary macro-level events like
pandemics, economic recessions, and other disasters (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2018; Morgeson et al., 2015).
4.3. Practical implications
Our research offers several practical implications. First, job insecurity increased in the early weeks of the pandemic, and that even
planning, which was effective at reducing job insecurity on the long-run, took time to show this effect. As such, we recommend that
managers and practitioners manage people's job insecurity perceptions by clearly and transparently communicating to their workers
their layoff plans, and whether these plans are temporary or permanent (see also Rudolph et al., 2020). Second, participants who used
high levels of planning were better able to manage job insecurity in the adjustment phase compared to others. Previous ndings show
that planning requires some coping resources, such as job control (Spector, 2002), and work involvement (Stiglbauer & Batinic, 2015).
Further, coping with work-related changes, such as those that occur in a pandemic (e.g., restafng, layoffs) may require some career
resources, like social and human capital resources (for a review, see Hirschi, 2012). Therefore, we encourage practitioners to provide
their staff with contextual and informational resources that facilitate planning (e.g., transparency of communication, information
about alternative options outside the organization), and with career resources that facilitate dealing with organizational change (e.g.,
training and skills development opportunities, mentorship, social support networks). In doing so, workers who are facing an imminent
job loss, be it anticipated (e.g., contract end) or not (e.g., due to a crisis) are well-informed and better equipped to deal with the
situation. Third, we encourage workers who are experiencing job insecurity to focus on problem-focused coping strategies such as
planning, as this strategy seem to be most effective for adjusting to job insecurity on the long-run, even though it may take a while
before its effectiveness shows.
4.4. Limitations and future directions
Our study is not without limitations. First, our Wave 1 measure started the eve the pandemic was announced by the WHO. This
implies that many participants were already experiencing the implications of the pandemic, albeit to a lesser extent. Therefore, we
were unable to capture a pre-pandemic baseline measure of job insecurity, and conclusions about transition from pre- to post-pandemic
job insecurity cannot be made (Bliese et al., 2017). Nevertheless, although layoffs in March 2020 were 2.4 times higher than in March
2019, it was nothing compared to the difference between April 2019 and 2020 (24.42 times; see Fig. 1). Therefore, we expect that
people's experience of stress was at its peak between March and April, and we can see this transition in the data as evidenced by the
increase in job insecurity. We encourage researchers to use data from large databanks as these may have repeated-measures before,
during (and after) COVID-19. A second limitation is that we considered the role of habitual, not situational coping strategies. As such,
we did not examine the dynamics of coping over time, as well as the effects of switching strategies at different time points (Bonanno &
Burton, 2013; Ford et al., 2019). Note that the correlations between habitual planning (measured at Wave 1) and the means of planning
measured at Waves 2 to 5 ranged from 0.23 to 0.31, suggesting some degree of variability in use of planning over time. In contrast,
reappraisal and distraction showed less variability over time, with correlations for Waves 2 to 5 ranging from 0.48 to 0.60 for
reappraisal and 0.45 to 0.48 for distraction.
Third, although we examined three common coping strategies (planning, reappraisal, and distraction) within broader coping
categories (problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance-focused coping categories), we did not examine specic behaviors or
cognitions that people engage in to carry out these different strategies. Future research could, for instance, investigate what type of
planning facilitates job search and/or job preservation behaviors, and how these relate to the reduction of job insecurity over time.
Fourth, while common in longitudinal designs, we must acknowledge there was attrition across the different waves of the survey.
Results of our attrition analyses do suggest moderate differences on job insecurity between those who remained in the survey and those
who dropped out. Therefore, our data were not missing completely at random (MCAR). However, Mplus deals with missing values
using FIML, which is a recommended method for non-MCAR data (e.g., Wang et al., 2017). Future research can investigate whether
certain types of items trigger people to drop out of the survey, and whether there are ways to mitigate these dropout effects. Fifth,
macro-level crises, such as pandemics, presumably constrain people's pool of resources (Akkermans et al., 2018, 2020), and accord-
ingly, coping effectiveness. In this research, we did not assess people's access to these resources throughout the pandemic. Investigating
these resources would be an important endeavor for future research to investigate pandemic-induced loss spirals (Hobfoll, 1989), as
well as the effects of these spirals and cycles on adjustment inequality over time. For example, future research could investigate the role
of resources such as social support (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; Langerak et al., 2022) or career resources (Hirschi, 2012) in facilitating
the effects of coping strategies on job insecurity.
4.5. Conclusion
In this study, we investigated the rise and fall of job insecurity over time from March to June 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic
unfolded. Further, we looked at the effect of habitual coping proles on this piecewise trajectory. Results indicated that job insecurity
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
11
steeply increased from mid-March to late-March, and then decreased until June. Importantly, habitual distraction mitigated the initial
increase in job insecurity but was inconsequential during the adjustment phase. Overall, the most effective strategy at eventually
reducing job insecurity during the adjustment phase was habitual planning. Despite limitations, our study highlights the importance of
investigating the extent to which psychological constructs, such as coping strategies, inuence the trajectory of stressors over time.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Elissa El Khawli: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Anita C. Keller: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Maximilian
Agostini: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Ben Gützkow: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review &
editing. Jannis Kreienkamp: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. N. Pontus Leander: Project administration,
Writing – review & editing. Susanne Scheibe: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Su-
pervision, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
inuence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103792.
References
Akkermans, J., Richardson, J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2020). The Covid-19 crisis as a career shock: Implications for careers and vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 119, Article 103434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103434
Akkermans, J., Seibert, S. E., & Mol, S. T. (2018). Tales of the unexpected: Integrating career shocks in the contemporary careers literature. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 44, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v44i0.1503
Aspinwall, L. G. (2011). Future-oriented thinking, proactive coping, and the management of potential threats to health and well-being. In S. Folkman (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 334–365). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195375343.013.0017.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.121.3.417
Bliese, P. D., Adler, A. B., & Flynn, P. J. (2017). Transition processes: A review and synthesis integrating methods and theory. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113213
Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory exibility. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116
Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 4–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.002
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful transaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 184–195.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.184
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2),
267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of t indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheng, T., Mauno, S., & Lee, C. (2014). The buffering effect of coping strategies in the relationship between job insecurity and employee well-being. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 35(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X12463170
Chung, H., & van Oorschot, W. (2011). Institutions versus market forces: Explaining the employment insecurity of European individuals during (the beginning of) the
nancial crisis. Journal of European Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928711412224
Cochrane, E., & Stolverg, S. G. (2020). $2 Trillion coronavirus stimulus bill is signed into law. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/us/politics/
coronavirus-house-voting.html.
Cohen, S., Evans, G. W., Stokols, D., & Krantz, D. S. (1986). Behavior, health, and environmental stress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9380-2
Day, A. L., & Livingstone, H. A. (2001). Chronic and acute stressors among military personnel: Do coping styles buffer their negative impact on health? Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 6(4), 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.4.348
De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: Meting en gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op het werk. Garant. In R. Bouwen, K. De Witte, H. De
Witte, & T. Taillieu (Eds.), Van groep naar gemeenschap. Liber amicorum prof. Dr. Leo lagrou (pp. 325–350).
De Witte, H., Vander Elst, T., & De Cuyper, N. (2015). Job insecurity, health and well-being. In J. Vuori, et al. (Eds.), Sustainable working lives, aligning perspectives on
health, safety, and well-being (pp. 109–128). Dordrecht: Springer Science +Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9798-6_7.
Dellippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4), 307–324. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.4030150403
Desimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & Desimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/
10.1002/job.1962
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. The American Psychologist, 61(4),
305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.305
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
12
Flora, D. B. (2008). Specifying piecewise latent trajectory models for longitudinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(3), 513–533.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510802154349
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter
outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992
Ford, B. Q., Gross, J. J., & Gruber, J. (2019). Broadening our eld of view: The role of emotion polyregulation. Emotion Review, 11(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1754073919850314
Forrier, A., De Cuyper, N., & Akkermans, J. (2018). The winner takes it all, the loser has to fall: Provoking the agency perspective in employability research. Human
Resource Management Journal, 28(4), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12206
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359
(1449), 1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
Gallie, D., Felstead, A., Green, F., & Inanc, H. (2017). The hidden face of job insecurity. Work, Employment and Society, 31(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0950017015624399
Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2007). The cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 141–149. https://doi.org/
10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.141
Geiser, C., Keller, B. T., & Lockhart, G. (2013). First- versus second-order latent growth curve models: Some insights from latent state-trait theory. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(3), 479–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.797832
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s0048577201393198
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Hirschi, A. (2012). The career resources model: An integrative framework for career counsellors. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03069885.2012.700506
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.44.3.513
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00033-7
Izadpanah, S., Barnow, S., Neubauer, A. B., & Holl, J. (2017). Development and validation of the Heidelberg form for emotion regulation strategies (HFERST): Factor
structure, reliability, and validity. Assessment, 26(5), 880–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117720283
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Jiang, L., & Lavaysse, L. M. (2018). Cognitive and affective job insecurity: A meta-analysis and a primary study. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2307–2342. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206318773853
Kinnunen, U., M¨
akikangas, A., Mauno, S., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2014). Development of perceived job insecurity across two years: Associations with
antecedents and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035835
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02296338
Klug, K., Bernhard-Oettel, C., M¨
akikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., & Sverke, M. (2019). Development of perceived job insecurity among young workers: A latent class
growth analysis. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 92(6), 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-019-01429-0
Koen, J., & Parker, S. K. (2020). In the eye of the beholder: How proactive coping alters perceptions of insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(6),
385–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000198
Langerak, J. B., Koen, J., & van Hooft, A. J. (2022). How to minimize job insecurity: The role of proactive and reactive coping over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103729
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169. https://doi.org/
10.1002/per.2410010304
Lin, W., Shao, Y., Li, G., Guo, Y., & Zhan, X. (2021). The psychological implications of COVID-19 on employee job insecurity and its consequences: The mitigating role
of organization adaptive practices. The Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000896
Liu, Y., Mo, S., Song, Y., & Wang, M. (2016). Longitudinal analysis in occupational health psychology: A review and tutorial of three longitudinal modeling
techniques. Applied Psychology, 65(2), 379–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12055
Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551–580.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00908.x
Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural
equations method. Int. J. Behav. Dev., 39(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502541455
McCrae, R. R. (1982). Age differences in the use of coping mechanisms. Journal of Gerontology, 37(4), 454–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/37.4.454
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
Men´
endez-Espina, S., Llosa, J. A., Agull´
o-Tom´
as, E., Rodríguez-Su´
arez, J., S´
aiz-Villar, R., & Lahseras-Díez, H. F. (2019). Job insecurity and mental health: The
moderating role of coping strategies from a gender perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00286
Michel, J. S., Rotch, M. A., Carson, J. E., Bowling, N. A., & Shifrin, N. V. (2021). Flattening the latent growth curve? Explaining within-person changes in employee
well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Occupational Health Science, 5(3), 247–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-021-00087-4
Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. (2015). Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40
(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0099
Muth´
en, L. K., & Muth´
en, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muth´
en & Muth´
en.
Probst, T., & Jiang, L. (2016). Mitigating physiological responses to layoff threat: An experimental test of the efcacy of two coping interventions. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(3), 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13030338
Richter, A., N¨
aswall, K., De Cuyper, N., Sverke, M., De Witte, H., & Hellgren, J. (2013). Coping with job insecurity. Career Development International, 18(5), 484–502.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-06-2013-0081
Rudolph, C. W., Allan, B., Clark, M., Hertel, G., Hirschi, A., Kunze, F., Shockley, K., Shoss, M., Sonnentag, S., & Zacher, H. (2020). Pandemics: Implications for research
and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2021(14), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k8us2
Selenko, E., & Batinic, B. (2013). Job insecurity and the benets of work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(6), 725–736. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1359432X.2012.703376
Semmer, N. K. (2002). Individual differences, work stress and health. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work and health
psychology (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013400.ch5.
Sexton, K. A., & Dugas, M. J. (2008). The cognitive avoidance questionnaire: Validation of the English translation. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(3), 355–370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.04.005
Sheppes, G. (2020). Transcending the “good & bad” and “here & now” in emotion regulation: Costs and benets of strategies across regulatory stages. In In Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 185–236). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.003
Shimazu, A., De Jonge, J., & Irimajiri, H. (2008). Lagged effects of active coping within the demand-control model: A three-wave panel study among Japanese
employees. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500701783934
E. El Khawli et al.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 139 (2022) 103792
13
Shoss, M. K. (2017). Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1911–1939. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206317691574
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of
coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 216–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216
Spector, P. E. (2002). Employee control and occupational stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8721.00185
Stiglbauer, B., & Batinic, B. (2015). Proactive coping with job insecurity: Is it always benecial to well-being? Work & Stress, 29(3), 264–285. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02678373.2015.1074956
Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2013). A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending on
the context. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2505–2514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613496434
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Unemployment level - Job losers on layoff. https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LNS13023653.
Urry, H. L., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotion regulation in older age. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 352–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0963721410388395
Uusberg, A., Taxer, J. L., Yih, J., Uusberg, H., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Reappraising reappraisal. Emotion Review, 11(4), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1754073919862617
van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991). Employees' reaction to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. Van
Vuuren (Eds.), Job Insecurity: Coping With Jobs at Risk (pp. 79–103). Sage.
Vander Elst, T. V., N¨
aswall, K., Bernhard-Oettel, C., De Witte, H., & Sverke, M. (2016). The effect of job insecurity on employee health complaints: A within-person
analysis of the explanatory role of threats to the manifest and latent benets of work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0039140
Vishkin, A., Hasson, Y., Millgram, Y., & Tamir, M. (2020). One size does not t all: Tailoring cognitive reappraisal to different emotions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219861432
Wang, M., Beal, D. J., Chan, D., Newman, D. A., Vancouver, J. B., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Longitudinal research: A panel discussion on conceptual issues, research
design, and statistical techniques. Work, Aging and Retirement.. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw033
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 306–317.
Wilson, J. M., Lee, J., Fitzgerald, H. N., Oosterhoff, B., Sevi, B., & Shook, N. J. (2020). Job insecurity and nancial concern during the COVID-19 pandemic are
associated with worse mental health. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 62(9), 686–691. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001962
Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. W. (2021). Individual differences and changes in subjective wellbeing during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. American
Psychologist, 76(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000702
Zhu, J., Wanberg, C. R., Harrison, D. A., & Diehn, E. W. (2016). Ups and downs of the expatriate experience? Understanding work adjustment trajectories and career
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000073
E. El Khawli et al.
